Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher

Education Area Involves the Use of Informatics

Javier Bilbao, Eugenio Bravo, Olatz Garcia, Concepcion Varela, Miguel

Rodriguez, Purificacion Gonzales

To cite this version:

Javier Bilbao, Eugenio Bravo, Olatz Garcia, Concepcion Varela, Miguel Rodriguez, et al.. Fu-ture Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area Involves the Use of Informatics.Informatics in Education - International Journal, 2008, 7 No. 1, pp.3-16. <hal-00588763>

HAL Id: hal-00588763

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00588763

Submitted on 10 May 2011

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinee au depot et a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,emanant des etablissements d’enseignement et derecherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prives.

Informatics in Education, 2008, Vol. 7, No. 1, 3–16 3© 2008 Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius

Future Quality in the Emergent European HigherEducation Area Involves the Use of Informatics

Javier BILBAO, Eugenio BRAVO, Olatz GARCÍA,Concepción VARELA, Miguel RODRÍGUEZ,Purificación GONZÁLEZDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Engineering School of BilbaoUniversity of the Basque CountryAlda. Urkijo, s/n, 48013 Bilbao, Spaine-mail: {javier.bilbao, eugenio.bravo, olatz.garcia, concepcion.varela, m.rodriguez,purificacion.gonzalez}@ehu.es

Received: June 2006

Abstract. In this paper an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurancefor the emergent European Higher Education Area is presented. If this set is implemented, theprocedures for the recognition of qualifications will be strengthened. The set has been dividedin two groups: there are internal and external standards and guidelines. The internals should beimplemented by higher education institutions and under their responsibility. The external standardsand guidelines should be implemented by external agencies with the collaboration of the highereducation institutions.Keywords: quality, standards, procedures, guidelines, European Higher Education Area.

1. Introduction

In the Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education inBerlin, 2003 (Berlin, 2003), it was suggested “to develop an agreed set of standards, pro-cedures and guidelines on quality assurance and to explore ways of ensuring an adequatepeer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies”.

Quality assurance in higher education is not an exclusive preoccupation of Europe.All over the world there is an increasing interest in quality and standards, reflecting boththe rapid growth of higher education and its cost to the public and the private purse.Accordingly, if Europe is to achieve its aspiration to be the most dynamic and knowledge-based economy in the world, then European higher education will need to demonstratethat it takes the quality of its programmes and awards seriously and is willing to put intoplace the means of assuring and demonstrating that quality. The commitment of all thoseinvolved in the production of these proposals augurs well for the fulfilment of a trulyEuropean dimension to quality assurance with which to reinforce the attractiveness of thehigher education offering of the EHEA.

Some fundamental principles that we should consider in these initiatives are:

4 J. Bilbao et al.

• the interests of students as well as those of the employers and those of the societyin general;

• the great importance of the institutional autonomy, clarified by the recognition thatthis one entails great responsibilities;

• the necessity that the external quality assurance adjusts to its intentions and to en-trust to the institutions only the necessary and appropriate load for the achievementof its objectives.

The European Higher Education Area, with its 46 states, is characterised by its diver-sity of political systems, higher education systems, socio-cultural and educational tradi-tions, languages, aspirations and expectations. And this is one of the glories of Europe.

This makes a single monolithic approach to quality, standards and quality assurancein higher education inappropriate. So, a narrow, prescriptive and highly formulated ap-proach to standards should be rejected. The framework to a good quality assurance shouldbe to lead to broad acceptance and for the approach of the different higher education com-munities across the EHEA. However, one consequence of the generic principle is that thestandards and guidelines focus more on what should be done than how they should beachieved.

Next, a set of proposed standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEAare set out (Standards, 2005), most of them accepted in the Conference of Ministersresponsible for Higher Education in Bergen, 2005 (Bergen, 2005). But these standardsand guidelines should not be interpreted as prescriptive or unchangeable.

2. Internal and External Assurance

Standards and guidelines are separated in two groups: internals and externals.Higher education institutions have the primary responsibility for the quality of their

provision and their assurance, so these institutions must take the opportune internal mea-sures for its attainment.

External assurance has to come from standards and guidelines that can take differ-ent forms according to the systems and can include institutional evaluations of differ-ent types; subject or programme evaluations; accreditation at subject, programme andinstitutional levels; and combinations of these. External agencies will implement thesestandards and guidelines.

But, both in the internal and in the external assurances, there is the typical risk: com-missions or agencies, which design, prepare, and write the guides and protocols wherethe standards will have place in, will be made up by members of the institutions that willbe judged.

Someone can think that standards and guidelines are not a trial but a help for improv-ing the quality of education. But we know that when time will go by, the standards andguidelines turn into objectives that must be filled. However, it is obvious that the pres-ence of members in the commissions that know perfectly the universities and educationalinstitutions is need. So, we think that joint commissions are the best way to satisfy both

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 5

the high level of the standards and measures (internals and externals) and their adequatelevel to each institution.

Moreover, evaluations, programmes, accreditations, and all kind of these type of mea-sures, must have itemization clear and public, in order to avoid inscrutability, contacts andstring-pulling, ‘favours for the boys’, nepotism and any other type of fiddle.

3. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance

3.1. Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance

Standard. Institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assuranceof the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. They should also committhemselves explicitly to the development of a culture which recognises the importance ofquality, and quality assurance, in their work. To achieve this, institutions should developand implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality.

The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly avail-able. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders.

Guidelines. Formal policies and procedures provide a framework within which highereducation institutions can develop and monitor the effectiveness of their quality assurancesystems. Computer procedures have to be essentials. Nowadays, there are several institu-tional platforms that work in a similar way to manage the teaching assignment, groups ofstudents, marks, etc. They can be adapted for the assurance systems, because the uniquetechnical problem of managing and working with huge data base is solved (Stemposz etal., 2007).

Fig. 1. Institutional platform for managing teaching assignment.

6 J. Bilbao et al.

Fig. 2. Monitoring of students’ tasks by Moodle platform.

Policies also help to provide public confidence in institutional autonomy. They containthe statements of intentions and the principal means by which these will be achieved.Procedural guidance can give more detailed information about the ways in which thepolicy is implemented and provides a useful reference point for those who need to knowabout the practical aspects of carrying out the procedures.

The policy statement is expected to include:

• the relationship between teaching and research in the institution;• the institution’s strategy for quality and standards;• the organisation of the quality assurance system;• the responsibilities of departments, schools, faculties and other organisational units

and individuals for the assurance of quality;• the involvement of students in quality assurance;• the ways in which the policy is implemented, monitored and revised.

The realisation of the EHEA depends crucially on a commitment at all levels of aninstitution to ensuring that its programmes have clear and explicit intended outcomes; thatits staff are ready, willing and able to provide teaching and learner support that will helpits students achieve those outcomes; and that there is full, timely and tangible recognitionof the contribution to its work by those of its staff who demonstrate particular excellence,expertise and dedication. All higher education institutions should aspire to improve andenhance the education they offer their students.

Higher educational institutions are improving their systems to contain the new tech-nologies come from ICT, but they usually forget the human aspect. Sometimes institutionsprovide courses to update teachers’ knowledge to the new ICT, but they do not do any-

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 7

thing with these teachers that do not do any effort in order to update or adapt their selvesto the new century (even with these teachers that torpedo the initiatives of their colleaguesin the interests of the new time). Obligations is not the best way, but sometimes is not abad option.

3.2. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards

Standard. Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic reviewand monitoring of their programmes and awards.Guidelines. The confidence of students and other stakeholders in higher education ismore likely to be established and maintained through effective quality assurance activitieswhich ensure that programmes are well-designed, regularly monitored and periodicallyreviewed, thereby securing their continuing relevance and currency.

Last years, students who accede to University from Secondary Studies do not bringthe necessary formation to begin higher studies. On the one hand, the reform of curriculain Secondary Schools causes that, in general, they have attended less hours of those thanthey would be advisable to obtain the necessary and basic knowledge for the access to theuniversity. On the other hand, the attitude of the pupils has undergone a gradual changethat has taken to him to lack, almost completely, of ability to individual work.

Use of Informatics and ICT is one of the keys to diminish the gap between SecondaryStudies and University. For example, the use of audiovisual and interactive materials self-made by teachers will be an improvement in the quality and in the results (Bilbao et al.,2006; Bilbao et al., 2007).

The quality assurance of programmes and awards are expected to include:

• development and publication of explicit intended learning outcomes;• careful attention to curriculum and programme design and content;• specific needs of different modes of delivery (e.g. full time, part-time, distance-

learning, e-learning) and types of higher education (e.g. academic, vocational, pro-fessional);

• availability of appropriate learning resources;• formal programme approval procedures by a body other than that teaching the pro-

gramme;• monitoring of the progress and achievements of students;• regular periodic reviews of programmes (including external panel members);• regular feedback from employers, labour market representatives and other relevant

organisations;• participation of students in quality assurance activities.

3.3. Assessment of Students

Standard. Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and proce-dures which are applied consistently.Guidelines. The assessment of students is one of the most important elements of highereducation. The outcomes of assessment have a profound effect on students’ future ca-reers. It is therefore important that assessment is carried out professionally at all times

8 J. Bilbao et al.

and takes into account the extensive knowledge which exists about testing and examina-tion processes. Assessment also provides valuable information for institutions about theeffectiveness of teaching and learners’ support.

Student assessment procedures are expected to:

• be designed to measure the achievement of the intended learning outcomes andother programme objectives;

• be appropriate for their purpose, whether diagnostic, formative or additive;• conceive and to use the evaluation like an integrated instrument in the process

education-learning that allows to provide feedback to students (precise informationon the areas in which to improve) and to the teacher (indicating the changes to himwho must make with the purpose of improving his methods);

• play an orientation and impelling role of the work of students so that these perceivethe evaluation like real help, generating of positive expectations;

• extend to all the aspects: conceptual, procedural and of attitude;• be developed throughout all the process education-learning and not to have only

character of terminal valuation;• have clear and published criteria for marking;• be undertaken by people who understand the role of assessment in the progression

of students towards the achievement of the knowledge and skills associated withtheir intended qualification;

• where possible, not rely on the judgements of single examiners;• take account of all the possible consequences of examination regulations;• have clear regulations covering student absence, illness and other mitigating cir-

cumstances;• ensure that assessments are conducted securely in accordance with the institution’s

stated procedures;• be subject to administrative verification checks to ensure the accuracy of the pro-

cedures.

In addition, students should be clearly informed about the assessment strategy beingused for their programme, what examinations or other assessment methods they will besubject to, what will be expected of them, and the criteria that will be applied to theassessment of their performance.

3.4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff

Standard. Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved withthe teaching of students is qualified and competent to do so. They should be available tothose undertaking external reviews, and commented upon in reports.Guidelines. Teachers are the single most important learning resource available to moststudents. It is important that those who teach have a full knowledge and understanding ofthe subject they are teaching, have the necessary skills and experience to transmit theirknowledge and understanding effectively to students in a range of teaching contexts, andcan access feedback on their own performance. Institutions should ensure that their staff

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 9

recruitment and appointment procedures include a means of making certain that all newstaff have at least the minimum necessary level of competence. Teaching staff should begiven opportunities to develop and extend their teaching capacity and should be encour-aged to value their skills. Institutions should provide poor teachers with opportunities toimprove their skills to an acceptable level and should have the means to remove themfrom their teaching duties if they continue to be demonstrably ineffective.

But we do not have to limit to the subject knowledge and to the communication skills.For example, as we are doing in our university, teachers can improve their technolog-ical skills by means of courses to use Moodle platform, use and develop Mathematicasoftware, develop web services, etc. (Bilbao et al., 2006).

3.5. Learning Resources and Student Support

Standard. Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of studentlearning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.Guidelines. In addition to their teachers, students rely on a range of resources to assisttheir learning. These vary from physical resources such as libraries or computing facili-ties to human support in the form of tutors, counsellors, and other advisers. Learning re-sources and other support mechanisms should be readily accessible to students, designedwith their needs in mind and responsive to feedback from those who use the servicesprovided. Institutions should routinely monitor, review and improve the effectiveness ofthe support services available to their students.

Use of computers is essential with new tools as wikis, blogs, etc. We can not forgetthat young people are digital natives versus us, digital emigrants (Prensky, 2001).

As we have mentioned, for last years, it is observed that the students who accede toUniversity from Secondary Studies do not bring the necessary formation to begin higherstudies. On the one hand, the reform of curricula in Secondary Schools causes that, ingeneral, they have attended less hours of those than they would be advisable to obtainthe necessary and basic knowledge for the access to the university. On the other hand, theattitude of the pupils has undergone a gradual change that has taken to him to lack, almostcompletely, of ability to individual work (in contrast, the group work has been promotedand improved). That is to say, the problem is not only the lack of knowledge, but this oneis clearly aggravated by the fact of the lack of habit, that in some cases even arrives at theincapacity, to face the work and individual effort that higher studies require.

In order to try to palliate the first of these problems, deficiencies in the knowledge,have started up some measures at university level in some European universities. Amongthese measures, we may emphasize the called ‘zero course’ in basic matters. Althoughit does not seem the suitable tool, because the ideal would be to correct the problemsin inferior levels (such as Secondary School), at least it is of easy application since itsbeginning depends solely on the own university.

The second detected problem does not have simple solution. To modify study habitsrequires a set of measures that involve the own student.

The foundation of the learning and education based on the ECTS, where the base isthe own learning of the student and where his work is considered, must be a sharp shock

10 J. Bilbao et al.

for that student. An exhaustive knowledge on the part of the student of the competitionswho must reach, the methodology that is going away to follow, and the evaluation thatteachers will implement, must stimulate his desire to learn.

3.6. Information Systems

Standard. Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant informa-tion for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities.Guidelines. Institutional self-knowledge is the starting point for effective quality assur-ance. It is important that institutions have the means of collecting and analysing informa-tion about their own activities. Without this they will not know what is working well andwhat needs attention, or the results of innovatory practices.

The quality-related information systems required by individual institutions will de-pend to some extent on local circumstances, but it is at least expected to cover:

• student progression and success rates;• employability of graduates;• students’ satisfaction with their programmes;• effectiveness of teachers;• profile of the student population;• learning resources available and their costs;• the institution’s own key performance indicators.

There is also value in institutions comparing themselves with other similar organ-isations within the EHEA and beyond. This allows them to extend the range of theirself-knowledge and to access possible ways of improving their own performance.

3.7. Public Information

Standard. Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective in-formation, both quantitative and qualitative, about the programmes and awards they areoffering.Guidelines. In fulfilment of their public role, higher education institutions have a re-sponsibility to provide information about the programmes they are offering, the intendedlearning outcomes of these, the qualifications they award, the teaching, learning and as-sessment procedures used, and the learning opportunities available to their students. Pub-lished information might also include the views and employment destinations of paststudents and the profile of the current student population. This information should beaccurate, impartial, objective and readily accessible and should not be used simply as amarketing opportunity. The institution should verify that it meets its own expectations inrespect of impartiality and objectivity.

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 11

4. Standards and Guidelines for the External Quality Assurance of HigherEducation

4.1. Use of Internal Quality Assurance Procedures

Standard. External quality assurance procedures should take into account the effective-ness of the internal quality assurance processes described in Part 1 of the European Stan-dards and Guidelines.Guidelines. The standards for internal quality assurance contained in Part 1 provide avaluable basis for the external quality assessment process. It is important that the in-stitutions’ own internal policies and procedures are carefully evaluated in the course ofexternal procedures, to determine the extent to which the standards are being met.

If higher education institutions are to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of theirown internal quality assurance processes, and if those processes properly assure qualityand standards, then external processes might be less intensive than otherwise.

4.2. Development of External Quality Assurance Processes

Standard. The aims and objectives of quality assurance processes should be determinedbefore the processes themselves are developed, by all those responsible (including highereducation institutions) and should be published with a description of the procedures to beused.Guidelines. In order to ensure clarity of purpose and transparency of procedures, externalquality assurance methods should be designed and developed through a process involvingkey stakeholders, including higher education institutions. The procedures that are finallyagreed should be published and should contain explicit statements of the aims and objec-tives of the processes as well as a description of the procedures to be used.

As external quality assurance makes demands on the institutions involved, a prelimi-nary impact assessment should be undertaken to ensure that the procedures to be adoptedare appropriate and do not interfere more than necessary with the normal work of highereducation institutions.

4.3. Criteria for Decisions

Standard. Any formal decisions made as a result of an external quality assurance activityshould be based on explicit published criteria that are applied consistently.Guidelines. Formal decisions made by quality assurance agencies have a significant im-pact on the institutions and programmes that are judged. In the interests of equity andreliability, decisions should be based on published criteria and interpreted in a consistentmanner. Conclusions should be based on recorded evidence and agencies should have inplace ways of moderating conclusions, if necessary.

Criteria and evidences must include computer aided tools (use and development). It isnot ethical, just and a good practice to valuate in the same way the teaching task to thosethat do not use any computer tool and to those that are opening ways to new methods ofeducation.

12 J. Bilbao et al.

4.4. Processes Fit for Purpose

Standard. All external quality assurance processes should be designed specifically to en-sure their fitness to achieve the aims and objectives set for them.Guidelines. Quality assurance agencies within the EHEA undertake different externalprocesses for different purposes and in different ways. It is of the first importance thatagencies should operate procedures which are fit for their own defined and publishedpurposes. Experience has shown, however, that there are some widely-used elements ofexternal review processes which not only help to ensure their validity, reliability andusefulness, but also provide a basis for the European dimension to quality assurance.

Amongst these elements the following are particularly noteworthy:

• insistence that the experts undertaking the external quality assurance activity haveappropriate skills and are competent to perform their task;

• the exercise of care in the selection of experts;• the provision of appropriate briefing or training for experts;• the use of international experts;• participation of students;• ensuring that the review procedures used are sufficient to provide adequate evi-

dence to support the findings and conclusions reached;• the use of the self-evaluation/site visit/draft report/published report/follow-up

model of review;• recognition of the importance of institutional improvement and enhancement poli-

cies as a fundamental element in the assurance of quality.

4.5. Reporting

Standard. Reports should be published and should be written in a style which is clear andreadily accessible to its intended readership. Any decisions, commendations or recom-mendations contained in reports should be easy for a reader to find.Guidelines. In order to ensure maximum benefit from external quality assurance pro-cesses, it is important that reports should meet the identified needs of the intended reader-ship. Reports are sometimes intended for different readership groups and this will requirecareful attention to structure, content, style and tone.

In general, reports should be structured to cover description, analysis (including rel-evant evidence), conclusions, commendations, and recommendations. There should besufficient preliminary explanation to enable a lay reader to understand the purposes ofthe review, its form, and the criteria used in making decisions. Key findings, conclusionsand recommendations should be easily locatable by readers.

Reports should be published in a readily accessible form and there should be opportu-nities for readers and users of the reports (both within the relevant institution and outsideit) to comment on their usefulness.

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 13

4.6. Follow-up Procedures

Standard. Quality assurance processes which contain recommendations for action orwhich require a subsequent action plan, should have a predetermined follow-up proce-dure which is implemented consistently.Guidelines. Quality assurance is not principally about individual external scrutiny events:It should be about continuously trying to do a better job. External quality assurance doesnot end with the publication of the report and should include a structured follow-up pro-cedure to ensure that recommendations are dealt with appropriately and any requiredaction plans drawn up and implemented. This may involve further meetings with institu-tional or programme representatives. The objective is to ensure that areas identified forimprovement are dealt with speedily and that further enhancement is encouraged.

4.7. Periodic Reviews

Standard. External quality assurance of institutions and/or programmes should be under-taken on a cyclical basis. The length of the cycle and the review procedures to be usedshould be clearly defined and published in advance.Guidelines. Quality assurance is not a static but a dynamic process. It should be con-tinuous and not “once in a life-time”. It does not end with the first review or with thecompletion of the formal follow-up procedure. It has to be periodically renewed. Subse-quent external reviews should take into account progress that has been made since theprevious event. The process to be used in all external reviews should be clearly definedby the external quality assurance agency and its demands on institutions should not begreater than are necessary for the achievement of its objectives.

4.8. System-wide Analyses

Standard. Quality assurance agencies should produce from time to time summary reportsdescribing and analysing the general findings of their reviews, evaluations, assessments,etc.Guidelines. All external quality assurance agencies collect a wealth of information aboutindividual programmes and/or institutions and this provides material for structured anal-yses across whole higher education systems. Such analyses can provide very useful in-formation about developments, trends, emerging good practice and areas of persistentdifficulty or weakness and can become useful tools for policy development and qualityenhancement. Agencies should consider including a research and development functionwithin their activities, to help them extract maximum benefit from their work.

5. Conclusions

A set of proposed standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEA are pre-sented in this paper, most of them accepted in the Conference of Ministers responsiblefor Higher Education in Bergen, 2005.

14 J. Bilbao et al.

The proposals offer increased transparency, security and information about highereducation for students and society more generally.

Some examples of proposals with the use of Informatics have been given. In thissense, our opinion is that a fresh and determined impetus of the computer use for teachingand learning is fundamental in order to improve the quality of the education and theresults of examinations of the students.

The implementation of the proposals will take longer for the internal and externalquality assurance standards to be widely adopted by institutions and agencies, becausetheir acceptance will depend on a willingness to change and develop on the part of thecountries with long-established and powerful higher education systems.

The proposals will remain no more than proposals, however, if they are not accompa-nied by an effective implementation strategy. In addition, these standards and guidelinesshould not be interpreted as prescriptive or unchangeable. And it is necessary to involveSecondary School in the process in order to improve the learning of those students whowill register in a centre of the EHEA.

References

Bergen (2005). The European higher education area: achieving the goals. In Communiqué of the Conference ofEuropean Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19–20 May 2005.

Berlin (2003). Realising the European higher education area. In Communiqué of the Conference of Ministersresponsible for Higher Education, Berlin, 19 September 2003.

Bilbao, J., Bravo, E. and González, P. (2006). La educación universitaria en tiempos de cambio (in Spanish,University education in time of change). In Servicio Editorial UPV/EHU, 293–304.

Bilbao, J., Bravo, E., González, P. and Chicote, J. (2007). MateOnLine: web application to use mathematicalocally. Informatics in Education, 1(6), 19–42.

Bilbao, J., García, O., Rodríguez, M., Varela, C., Bravo, E., González, P. and Valdenebro, V. (2006). When theclass finishes or it has not still begun. Wseas Trans. on Advances in Engineering Education, 11(3), 1030–1035.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. NCB University Press, 9(5).http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Standards (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.

Stemposz, E., Stasiecka, A. and Jodlowski, A. (2007). The proposal of metadata for defining the quality ofe-learning. In ENMA 2007, 357–364.

J. Bilbao obtained the degree in electrical engineering from University of the BasqueCountry, Spain, in 1991. At present he is PhD in applied mathematics and professor atthe Department of Applied Mathematics of that university.

E. Bravo obtained the degree in electrical engineering from University of the BasqueCountry, Spain, in 1991. At present he is PhD in applied mathematics and professor atthe Department of Applied Mathematics of that university.

O. García obtained the degree in mathematics from University of the Basque Country,Spain, in 1989. At present she is PhD in applied mathematics and professor at the De-partment of Applied Mathematics of that university.

Future Quality in the Emergent European Higher Education Area 15

C. Varela obtained the degree in mathematics from UNED, Spain, in 1986. At presentshe is PhD in economics and statistics and professor at the Department of Applied Math-ematics of that university.

M. Rodríguez obtained the degree in physics from University of Navarra, Spain, in 1978.At present he is PhD in electronic engineering and professor at the Department of AppliedMathematics of that university.

P. González obtained the degree in energetics engineering from University of the BasqueCountry, Spain, in 1979. At present she is PhD in applied mathematics and professor atthe Department of Applied Mathematics of that university and head of the department.

16 J. Bilbao et al.

Europos aukštojo mokslo ↪ivari ↪u srici ↪u susietumas su informatikosnaudojimu

Javier BILBAO, Eugenio BRAVO, Olatz GARCÍA, Concepción VARELA,Miguel RODRÍGUEZ, Purificación GONZÁLEZ

Šiame straipsnyje aptariamos kokybes standart ↪u, procedur ↪u ir rekomendacij ↪u, taikom ↪u Euro-pos aukštojo mokslo ↪ivarioms sritims, garantijos. Kai rekomendacijos bus ↪igyvendintos, tai kvali-fikacij ↪u atpažinimo procedura sustipres. Kriterijai padalinti ↪i dvi grupes: vidinius ir išorinius stan-dartus bei rekomendacijas. Vidinius standartus turet ↪u ↪igyvendinti ir už juos buti atsakingos aukštojomokslo ↪istaigos. Išorinius standartus turet ↪u ↪igyvendinti išorines institucijos, bendradarbiaudamossu aukštojo mokslo ↪istaigomis.